Sunday, October 27, 2013

Why Black people should boycott the movie '12 years a slave'...


"...even my conditioning's been conditioned..."
--Wendell Harris Jr.'s script for the movie 'Chameleon Street'

The Help (2011)

Django Unchained (2012)

The Butler (2013)

And now...the movie '12 Years a slave'.

Recently, a fellow blogger criticized me for being too hard on white people. 

This person suggested that I concentrate on speaking about how badly Black people treat each other instead of railing against covert and overt white bigots. 

Well, if he thinks I'm being too tough on whitey, movies like the ones I mention above, are the reason why.  

Now, we're encouraged to talk about Black people and how cruel we are to one another, but no one wants to talk about how we as a people, got to such a place of self hatred in our communities. 

We all need to realize that beyond the decades of conditioning Black people endure to get them to hate themselves, which is conditioning no other ethnic group in this world gets by the way, that movies like the ones I mention above are 'triggering instruments' to keep us mired in the paradigm of white supremacy.

And the reason these movies are being pumped out year after year right now, is to thwart the idea that we as Black people, should feel proud to have a Black man as the american president. 

And again, there's an almost knee-jerked reaction some people have when anyone refers to Barack Obama as Black, that has them telling you he's got a white mother. 

But, as I've mentioned before, I never heard of a 'Teabagger' until Obama was president; and I don't remember white supremacist websites crashing due to an overwhelming influx of traffic until Obama was president either. 

Now, the movie '12 years a slave' is supposedly a true story about a Black man named Solomon Northup from upstate New York, who visits the antebellum south as a free Black man, and how during his visit, he's wrongly abducted and sold into slavery. 

Now, beyond the film's slave narrative, this movie's main plot point, speaks to an idea white supremacists are interested in mainstreaming. 

What this film's really saying is, white elites want us reeled in from our thinking we can survive and thrive without them, back into the bondage of good ole' christian negro programming that made us revere them like gods. Thus, the free man (Solomon) goes back to the slave owning south and is captured, basically saying in a way, he wanted to be captured; whitey's sublimely intimating, how subconsciously, Solomon would feel better not having to think for himself living in captivity. Basically, he'd be happier being a slave, whether he knows it or not; and so would the overwhelming majority of the Black Diaspora. That includes YOU too! This movie also triggers the 'shame paradigm' that's been bred into us, so we can continue feeling inferior to whitey all our lives at the mere mention of slavery.

So, they're putting out propaganda films disguised as family entertainment, just so we Black folks can long for the good ole' days when we looked to them for every answer to our questions.  

I remember the post I put out about that craptastic film 'The Butler', and some Black guy told me that my critique of the film wasn't valid because I basically said the film was used to portray Obama as a butler or a 'servant', rather than the president.

He went on to tell me that Obama's a lackey for white supremacists and the movie portrayed white presidents as friends to Black people. 

Now, this observation tells me that he probably paid money to go see this film, or paid money for a bootleg copy of it. 

So, even 'conscious' Black people are going to see these flicks.

I remember one 'conscious' Black person I saw on YouTube, said in their video that they couldn't stand Quentin Tarantino, but went to see 'Django Unchained' five times, 'cause their friends were seeing it.  

These are the dumbfounding effects of the brainwashing Black folks get in this country.  

So I'm saying again, if you're a 'conscious' Black person, or an independently minded one at least, stop supporting these cavalcade of stars coon shows. 

And you see this one has Brad Pitt and Micheal Fassbender in it. Just to make the poison a little sweeter. 

And this movie was directed by a Black brit I respected, Steve McQueen. He made a terrific movie called 'Hunger' about a prison's hunger strike in ireland. 

And supposedly, he's suppose to direct a 'biopic' about Fela Kuti, the revolutionary Nigerian singer. 

Well, I hope that film turns out better than this one.  

But since Steve has shown he's a stooge for white supremacists and their agenda, when that flick comes out, I'll be sure to miss it. 

And it's reactions like this, that will ultimately mark the 'unmaking' of a slave.  

And that's something Black people desperately need to show the powers that be in this country and abroad. 

Kem Wesir,

MontUHURU Mimia 

P.S.
If you'd like to check out my Blog post about that 'craptastic' movie 'The Butler', you can see it here.
  

13 comments:

  1. What you said is so true. Since Obama been president all these slave movies come out of the woodwork. And Obama does not care about blacks and the black community. He is related to George Bush, Kerry and i forgot who else. Just a mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Pat...

      Even though Obama is working for white supremacists, he's BLACK enough to have the white elite put out all these films portraying Black people as slaves in this country.

      Just so the white supremacist 'fever' we've been under doesn't break.

      So Black people need to know that white supremacists themselves don't realize Obama's working for them. And they really don't care, 'cause they're blinded by their bigotry.

      Obama is a symbol, that's all; but symbols are VERY important, just ask the white elite i.e. the illuminati.

      So symbolically, and every other kind of way, Black people need to be kept dumbfounded and hating themselves. Thus, we have this crap movie and all the others I've mentioned come out during Obama's presidency.

      And you're right, this government is rotten to the core; and the only way to fix it, is to shut this sham completely down.

      Thanks for commenting.

      Delete
  2. Now, as a whole, I can't stand slavery or servitude flicks. I've always seen these movies as a "look how far blacks have come, stop complaining, you've got it good now" or "slavery was bad, but some white guy saved the black people/ helped them out in some way." I also see the films as a "know your place blacks, it was only by the grace of whites that you're 'free' today. "
    I always hear the argument that we should never forget about the evils of slavery and so support the films. I say, why is the story of slavery and the Civil Rights movement the only story told about blacks in regard to history.
    What were black folks like before slavery? I'd like to see a movie / hear more about precolonial times in Africa. We get stories about Ancient Greece, Queens and Kings in Europe, nothing about the countries of Africa precolonialism and if there's an Egyptian movie its whites playing the roles and Egypt isn't the only African country.
    I hear the argument black people should see the movies to support black actors. I say no, when there's no turn out for this, people would realize better stories need to be told. And why support any actor that contributes to a the ugly distortion of truth perpetuated in America? They have sold out. But we contribute when we pay, they wouldn't be offered the roles if the films weren't profitable.
    Now 12 years a Slave is based on a true story. The story of a free black man who is kidnapped and thrown into slavery. Sad thing about American history is that this slave, like every slave that got a story out had to have their accounts verified by a white person. How do we know it was doctored to make certain characters more favorable to push whatever agenda said white person wanted? I am just wary of the white saviour being pushed in every narrative. You see, they had to tell themselves it(slavery) was bad and to stop it. I don't think slavery ended its just covert now, goes by other names. They really didn't stop/ save anything. And what silly reason is told for slavery ending? Black people aren't free. What do you take away from slave movies? What are you supposed to feel besides "Lucky" it wasn't you?
    I don't like to be constantly reminded of the past when the present isn't really that far off. In general Hollywood should be avoided by people of color, television too, the media as a whole doesn't take kindly to marginalized folks, I wish lots of things with change but they're not going to. I won't put myself through the agony of watching anything about slavery, even ones based on "true" stories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh and Obama echoes my sentiment on the "look how far blacks have come, racism is dead, stop complaining already." How can the US be racist with a "black" president? Obama is a pawn, this country is a joke. Its just an illusion, the movies play into as well, "see how bad things were" look how far we've come, when in reality no progress has been made. Its all smoke and mirrors. I don't see the movies coming out as a jab at Obama's presidency, but that could also be the case.
    The movies could also serve as mouthpieces saying, "we miss these times." White people could just be reminiscent of the good ole days. Either way, I hate slavery and servitude movies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These slave-narrative movies serve two purposes:

    1.) They keep Black people in a continuous cycle of shame and self-hatred, so we won't unify to fight white supremacy.

    And

    2.) These flicks keep us revering white folks like they were gods, so they keep their positions of power.

    PERIOD.

    There's nothing edifying, informational or uplifting about these flicks, but that's how they're always packaged; and for the most part, the majority of brainwashed Black folks frequent these movies.

    But in spite of this, I am hopeful that Black folks will make changes in the coming generations, I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime, but then again, maybe it will.

    I do disagree with you on one thing, Black people have made 'individual' strides...now we have to make them collectively; and that's the hard part.

    That involves undoing the decades of conditioning we have to hate ourselves; but can it be done...absolutely.

    And the sooner we start, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What "individual" strides have colored people made really? Do you mean that some folks have reflected on themselves and decided that they do not like the status quo? If that's what you mean, well folks have been doing that since the very beginning of colonialism, it just doesn't leave a mark because it's just individuals who are being oppressed and so their messages will be suppressed which takes no one anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We 'colored' people have a BLACK PRESIDENT; that's what 'strides' we've made in this country.

      And since you're calling us 'colored' you must be one of them lynyrd skynyrd lovin' covert klansman types. So here's my question to you: why are you looking at my Blog?

      There's gotta' be a local skinhead rally somewhere in your town, go find it and stay off my Blog.

      Delete
  6. I'm not a skin head, trust me...you're way off base. If you're going to go and call people "black" that have white blood and even Native blood, well I'm going to be a bit more accurate and say "colored"". I would prefer just say oppressed groups of people or whatever, but you probably would not know specially who I was addressing because I don't typically condone the use of "racial" labels to describe groups of people. The term "African American" is problematic for me as well(when "blacks" use it to describe themselves, unless we're talking about Naturalized citizens from some African nation, or well a second generation(parents born in Africa) colored/black(or whatever distinction you prefer) person, and well that wouldn't describe how a person looks on the outside, because you can have "white African Americans in both scenarios mentioned. It just means more labels and more division.

    Anyways, what's your definition of "black"? Is it a specific look? Who created the terms of blackness anyhow? It isn't anything genetic, because well then he'd be umm not any of those, he'd be simply human. And aren't we all human? Even more confusing when one factors in the phenotypes of both parents. Why put this man in a box, because those in charge have placed most that look a tad bit different from them in boxes?

    Do you really consider our current president to be one who is any different than any previous president? Besides the noticeable textured hair and darker complexion, do you colored people claim him as "yours" because he is the Commander in Chief, or because of what he looks like, or both of those things? What has he done while in office that's beneficial to those socially considered "black"?

    Oh I see, because there's so much opposition towards him, he must be "black". Or is it because a group of people that look like him, but share no historical background(his father is Kenyan(no ties to slavery here in the US/Jim Crow, mother white, raised by her family in a privileged manner, went to Ivy league schools. Most "black" people in the states have ancestry tied to chattel slavery, have either lived through/have parents who experienced Segregation/Jim Crow, this guy just looks like what is considered "black" and well again everyone and anyone is "black" in the States, even people that don't fit the build but American society is a nasty beast)
    I'm not being disparaging/saying anything racist. I do not think I'm better than you or anyone else due to the way I look. People that look like me haven't been in any position of power over any other group of people. I don't hold bigoted beliefs towards what you're calling "black" people. I love everyone, I just don't call groups of people the same thing that you do. Get what I'm saying? Basically, I'm asking if you go by our society definition of what "black" is? Are you going by experiences of said group of people and anyone that is treated a certain way is "black"? Is it looks? What looks black? I can't help but wonder if you too have embraced what the people in positions of power have used define others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look, what you are is a white person who's trying to show how intellectually superior you are by littering my Blog with your myriad comments.

      If you're gonna' call Black people 'colored', you've exposed yourself for the neo-liberal covert white bigot that you are.

      Only southern american bigots and klansman use the term 'colored' in reference to Black people.

      Now you can sit here and spout out all the theories on why ethnicity is a social construct, but one thing I do know for sure, is that you're a garden-variety white supremacist that doesn't seek any kind of answer to a question...you just wanna' argue.

      I'm seeking answers and resolutions to debates, I don't have time to simply blather on about theories that don't hold water in the real world.

      So go visit one of your bigoted white friend's blogs. They'll sit and entertain all your non-sense.

      And that goes for anyone who agrees with this half-wit too.

      Delete
    2. LOL! Well played!

      Delete
  7. Look again, I choose not to label myself in the ways society sees fit to label everyone. That doesn't mean that I'm white, or even a white supremacist , in fact, I've stated the opposite. I have identified as from and oppressed group here in America.
    I have also explained why I use the term colored. I don't see black as a proper label if labels are to be used, and I already explained that. I asked you questions. Should I embrace a label and identify as a group("black") to make you feel better? I don't accept race at all, period. I've explained why and still you see fit to label me, just as those that oppress do.
    Not only southern "white" people use the term "colored people", I usually interchange it with People of color which is actually a pretty popular term too. Again, I'm not "white" and I'm not even considered Southern, I hail from Washington, DC metro area.
    I think you should actually be offended by any and all racial labels, not just "colored people" or negroes(does that offend you?), black or coloreds(though really when I say this, I don't even mean what you have implied, what you consider "black" this would include for me people of Asian/indigenous descent as well) All labels on a racial level are offensive, but using ethnicity to identify groups of people is a better way to go about it, if you have to talk about a specific group of people to begin with.
    And so I ask, what do you consider "black"? Is it the same definition that was developed by the oppressor/"white" man? Does it include anyone of African descent? If it's anyone of African descent, wouldn't that be the whole entire world? If it's according to physical characteristics, is anyone too light to be black? If someone has straight as opposed to kinky hair, I he/she black? Do they have to have certain facial/physical features to be black(full lips, wide noses, bigger foreheads, round bottoms, more curves?) According to American social constructs(not the actual constructs of race itself which is only three categories) a black person is anyone with "black" blood, you don't have to have a darker complexion than "white" counterparts, you don't have to have textured hair, just a black relative somewhere in your bloodline. Don't we really all have that, since we all are human, and the first person to live was in Africa and in recreating said person's bones, she was phenotypically "black", are we not all the same, and "black" since that blood is in each and every one of us? So I ask, what makes black blood so different, it doesn't look different on a genetic level or even to the human eye, so please, I would like to know, what is black? The definition is too inclusive for it to be a real thing.
    Really don't know why you have assumed that I think I'm better than anyone else/bigoted when I haven't said a single disparaging remark about any group of people.
    And what's half-witted about asking for you to define blackness? What's half-witted about saying the idea of race needs to just go away because it serves no purpose but to divide and confuse people. And if you want to stick to the labels of race, why is the particular category of "black" so inclusive? Do you not see any of this as problematic?
    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First off...you keep asking why I consider myself 'Black'? But what you fail to realize, is more than I consider myself Black, YOUR PEOPLE CONSIDER ME BLACK!

      Now, you can spout out all the theories about stereotypes and phenotypes all you want, but you can't deny that YOU AND YOUR WHITE PEOPLE consider and treat everyone who is not fair-skinned, like they're inferior.

      And unlike you I have real world examples to back this up, like:

      1.) Teabaggers holding a gun rally a couple of miles from the white house after Obama was elected president.

      2.) White supremacist websites crashing after Obama was sworn in.

      3.) White politicians screaming "YOU LIE!" during Obama's state of the union address.

      4.) These survivalist/white militia groups training in the woods for and ethnic war. So much so that gun manufacturers say they can't keep up with demand for guns in this country.

      See, the real problem is this: YOU AND YOUR PEOPLE DON'T WANNA' BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE THAT SHALLOW AND HATEFUL...but you are!!

      There's no place your people have gone and created peace and harmony...NONE!

      So, go sell the 'white moral high-ground' crap some where else, I'm all stocked up here.

      You and your people don't have the moral or intellectual high-ground in ANY AREA!

      And no amount of spin can erase that fact!

      Delete